PLUTARCH

THE COMPARISON OF FABIUS WITH PERICLES

translated by John Dryden

Introductory Note

Plutarch of Chaeronea (2nd half of the first century A.D.) lived
much later than the events he wrote about in this biography, but he
clearly had access to many sources which no longer survive in the
present day. For the most part, he was a philosopher rather than an
historian, interested primarily in the characters of his subjects;
the name given to a large corpus of his philosphical works, the
Moralia, is a further indication of his penchant for
considerations of ethics and proper behaviour. Plutarch's accuracy on
historical matters is a matter of dispute among historians, but he is
reasonably reliable. The translation offered here may well seem
archaic at points, but this should not pose serious problems most of
the time, and it is not unpleasant to read Dryden's poetic
translations of the poetry cited with some frequency by Plutarch.

The electronic text version of this translation comes
from the Eris
Project at Virginia Tech, which has made it available for public
use. The hypertext version presented here has been designed for
students of Ancient History at the University of Calgary. I have
added chapter and section numbers (to facilitate specific citation or
to find a specific passage from a citation; note: the section numbers
of a Greek text do not always fit as smoothly as one might like into
a translation) and the internal links (to allow navigation); Dryden's
paragraphs have been adopted here, with occasional minor
modifications. Another HTML version of the complete text, with no
numeration or internal links if you prefer this, is available at the
Internet
Classics Archive from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

J. Vanderspoel, Department of Greek, Latin
and Ancient History, University of Calgary

I (1) WE have here had two lives rich in
examples, both of civil and military excellence. Let us first compare
the two men in their warlike capacity. Pericles presided in his
commonwealth when it was in its most flourishing and opulent
condition, great and growing in power; so that it may be thought it
was rather the common success and fortune that kept him from any fall
or disaster. (2) But the task of Fabius, who undertook the government
in the worst and most difficult times, was not to preserve and
maintain the well-established felicity of a prosperous state, but to
raise and uphold a sinking and ruinous commonwealth. Besides, the
victories of Cimon, the trophies of Myronides and Leocrates, with the
many famous exploits of Tolmides, were employed by Pericles rather to
fill the city with festive entertainments and solemnities than to
enlarge and secure its empire. (3) Whereas, Fabius, when he took upon
him the government, had the frightful object before his eyes of Roman
armies destroyed, of their generals and consuls slain, of lakes and
plains and forests strewed with the dead bodies, and rivers stained
with the blood of his fellow-citizens; and yet, with his mature and
solid counsels, with the firmness of his resolution, he, as it were,
put his shoulder to the falling commonwealth, and kept it up from
foundering through the failings and weaknesses of others. (4) Perhaps
it may be more easy to govern a city broken and tamed with calamities
and adversity, and compelled by danger and necessity to listen to
wisdom, than to set a bridle on wantonness and temerity, and rule a
people pampered and restive with long prosperity as were the
Athenians when Pericles held the reins of government. But then again,
not to be daunted nor discomposed with the vast heap of calamities
under which the people of Rome at that time groaned and succumbed,
argues a courage in Fabius and a strength of purpose more than
ordinary.

II
(1) We may set Tarentum retaken against Samos won by Pericles, and
the conquest of Euboea we may well balance with the towns of
Campania; though Capua itself was reduced by the consuls Fulvius and
Appius. I do not find that Fabius won any set battle but that against
the Ligurians, for which he had his triumph; whereas Pericles erected
nine trophies for as many victories obtained by land and by sea. (2)
But no action of Pericles can be compared to that memorable rescue of
Minucius, when Fabius redeemed both him and his army from utter
destruction; a noble act combining the highest valour, wisdom, and
humanity. On the other side, it does not appear that Pericles was
ever so overreached as Fabius was by Hannibal with his flaming oxen.
His enemy there had, without his agency, put himself accidentally
into his power, yet Fabius let him slip in the night, and, when day
came, was worsted by him, was anticipated in the moment of success,
and mastered by his prisoner. (3) If it is the part of a good
general, not only to provide for the present, but also to have a
clear foresight of things to come, in this point Pericles is the
superior; for he admonished the Athenians, and told them beforehand
the ruin the war would bring upon them, by their grasping more than
they were able to manage. But Fabius was not so good a prophet, when
he denounced to the Romans that the undertaking of Scipio would be
the destruction of the commonwealth. (4) So that Pericles was a good
prophet of bad success, and Fabius was a bad prophet of success that
was good. And, indeed, to lose an advantage through diffidence is no
less blamable in a general than to fall into danger for want of
foresight; for both these faults, though of a contrary nature, spring
from the same root, want of judgment and experience.

III (1) As for their civil policy, it is
imputed to Pericles that he occasioned the war, since no terms of
peace, offered by the Lacedaemonians, would content him. It is true,
I presume, that Fabius, also, was not for yielding any point to the
Carthaginians, but was ready to hazard all, rather than lessen the
empire of Rome. The mildness of Fabius towards his colleague Minucius
does, by way of comparison, rebuke and condemn the exertions of
Pericles to banish Cimon and Thucydides, noble, aristocratic men, who
by his means suffered ostracism. (2) The authority of Pericles in
Athens was much greater than that of Fabius in Rome. Hence it was
more easy for him to prevent miscarriages arising from the mistakes
and insufficiency of other officers; only Tolmides broke loose from
him, and, contrary to his persuasions, unadvisedly fought with the
Boeotians, and was slain. The greatness of his influence made all
others submit and conform themselves to his judgment. (3) Whereas
Fabius, sure and unerring himself, for want of that general power,
had not the means to obviate the miscarriages of others; but it had
been happy for the Romans if his authority had been greater, for so,
we may presume, their disasters had been fewer.

As to liberality and public spirit, Pericles was eminent in never
taking any gifts, and Fabius, for giving his own money to ransom his
soldiers, (4) though the sum did not exceed six talents. Than
Pericles, meantime, no man had ever greater opportunities to enrich
himself, having had presents offered him from so many kings and
princes and allies, yet no man was ever more free from corruption.
(5) And for the beauty and magnificence of temples and public
edifices with which he adorned his country, it must be confessed,
that all the ornaments and structures of Rome, to the time of the
Caesars, had nothing to compare, either in greatness of design or of
expense, with the lustre of those which Pericles only erected at
Athens.